Vibhu Bakhru ORDER
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Introduction
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning orders dated 23.02.2016, 06.09.2016 and 06.07.2017 (the impugned orders). By the impugned order dated 23.02.2016, the Policy Relaxation Committee (hereafter 'PRC') - constituted in terms of Paragraph 2.57(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) - of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) rejected the petitioner's application for the second extension of validity of the Duty Free Import Authorisation on the ground that the petitioner was unable to establish a case of genuine hardship. By the impugned order dated 06.09.2016, the PRC rejected the petitioners application of review of the impugned decision dated 23.02.2016. And, by the impugned order dated 06.07.2017, the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) rejected the petitioner's request after affording the petitioner a hearing.
Facts
2. On 7th February 2012, the petitioner had received a bulk deemed export order for supply of Aluminium Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR) for FOB value of US$ 6.7 million, which was to be delivered within twenty one months.
3. The petitioner applied for Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) under the Foreign Trade Policy of 2009-14 (FTP) importing inputs duty free for meeting its export obligations. In terms of the FTP, the petitioner was granted such Authorization which was valid for a period of 18 months.
4. The petitioner completed its export obligations within the stipulated period of twenty one months (that is, by November 2013). The petitioner states that it completed the said export order by procuring raw material indigenously and not by procuring importing inputs, for which the Duty Free Import Authorization was sought.
5. The Duty Free Import Authorisation was valid till 31st March 2014. The petitioner sought extension of the validity of the Duty Free Import Authorization. On 20th May 2014, the DGFT acceded to the petitioner's request and extended the validity of the Duty Free Import Authorization by a further period of six months, that is, till 30th September 2014.
6. The petitioner did not complete its imports within the extended period as well. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application dated 08.12.2015 seeking further extension of six months (second revalidation). In its application, the petitioner contended that the global market was too volatile to procure material with a fixed price schedule and, therefore, the petitioner was required to wait for the right time to purchase the material because of inherent limitation of availability of resources. The petitioner also contested the policy of granting only one revalidation. He contended that the same does not hold good once an exporter has fulfilled its export obligation prior to the import.
7. The petitioner's application was considered and rejected by the PRC at a meeting held on 23.02.2016, principally, on the ground that the reasons provided by the petitioner only integrated commercial risk and not genuine hardship.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner filed an application on 2nd June, 2016 seeking review of the said decision (dated 23.02.2016), inter alia, claiming that since the first extension was granted on 20th May, 2014, albeit, with the retrospective effect from 1st April, 2014, the petitioner, effectively, was provided only four months extension in real terms. The said application was also rejected by the PRC by an order dated 6th September, 2016. The PRC noted that the Duty Free Import Authorization has remained valid for a period of twenty-four months and the petitioner had imported only one item to the extent of 39%. The PRC was of the view that sufficient time had been provided to the petitioner for completing the balance imports and there was no cogent reason of not making imports within the stipulated time period (24........